The Grand Illusion

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes
I believe in electricity, gravity, light & etc..

I do not consider the possibility that they do not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? If someone a few years from now came up with a TOE that explained what we have come to know as electricity and light better than our current theories of electromagnetism, et al, said "electrons" and "photons" were not real, they were really just "X", and it was better supported by evidence than our current theories, you'd still cling to the old ones? I'm not saying this is likely, but hey- it happened to Newton, right?

You are really talking about two different things.

I didn't say I would continue to believe in the light of contrary evidence.

 

[Piscivore]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes
I believe in electricity, gravity, light & etc..

I do not consider the possibility that they do not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are really talking about two different things.

I didn't say I would continue to believe in the light of contrary evidence.

I gotcha. You meant the observed effects the theories describe, not the theories named as such. Yeah, I misunderstood.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Most people have an image of how they look to the world, you see yourself in the mirror everyday but when you are away from the mirror do you really have to consider the possibility that you may look like a three headed toad, as well as having the belief that you look like the person you last saw in the mirror. I don't see why, having a belief just means that all other possibilities just fade into the background even if they are still there you don't really have to think about them do you, without a good reason?

 

[Iacchus]

I don't hope, I know. The sacrifice I made of my neighbor's rotweiller to Quetzelcouatl insured it.

You're welcome.

Yeah, but what if there was some glitch in God's computer, and it all just winked out all of a sudden?

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Yeah, but what if there was some glitch in God's computer, and it all just winked out all of a sudden?

you don't even have to have glitches, a deadly black hole might sweep into the solar system and swallow up the sun leaving us in orbit around a black hole.......

 

[stamenflicker]

Diogenes,

If someone claims to believe in God, but consder the possibility that it may not exist, are admitting they don't really believe.. Sounds more like ' hope '..

I think hope is a good word, but I might couple it with the word "trust." Short of the simple (but fundamental) existence question, the word trust better captures a relationship with the belief or hope. So faith might be the trust-hope in item X.

I have faith in my wife's fidelity-- maybe even in moments of great doubt. It is a hope and a trust that she remains true to her vows.

I've made this analogy before, but the "economy" is a similar analogy for faith. I'm not talking about an economic crash or anything like that, but rather the reality that you keep a quarter in your pocket at all. We real-ify the ideal (and unverifiable) economy every day we operate within its functionality.

The "economy" is an ideology that human beings have attached themselves to in very practical, even necessary ways. But to say an economy (noun) really exists outside of its function is a pretty silly question and we would probably in intellectual honesty say the economy itself does not exist in any real terms. There isn't really a logical basis to except the law of supply and demand other than, "That's just the way it is" in Capitalism.

Hence, the properties of item X are more tied to their function than to their actual reality, which is why I tend not to fret too much over actuality in theological doubt. I tend to return a degree of trust (or faith) to the function, and that at many levels is enough for me; however I would be lying if I said I didn't also attach that trust to a literal God, however intellectually displeasing the concept may seem at times.

Flick

 

[Atlas]

Yeah, but what if there was some glitch in God's computer, and it all just winked out all of a sudden?

That would be evidence for your position but strangely not good evidence. If it all winked out we'd all be dead and it's quite likely both heaven and hell would wink off too without God's computer to keep them lit.

And once again your faith in your "truth" would be shown equal to the atheist's non belief in the illusion you hold dear.

 

[Bearguin]

Nice cookie. Mine only has lottery numbers,

You need to watch this if the restaurant also sells lottery tickets........

 

[Iacchus]

That would be evidence for your position but strangely not good evidence. If it all winked out we'd all be dead and it's quite likely both heaven and hell would wink off too without God's computer to keep them lit.

And once again your faith in your "truth" would be shown equal to the atheist's non belief in the illusion you hold dear.

I see, it's all relative huh? ... Yeah, but relative to what? Could it be that we are in fact speaking of the same reality, just different aspects of it?

 

[Atlas]

I see, it's all relative huh? ... Yeah, but relative to what? Could it be that we are in fact speaking of the same reality, just different aspects of it?

I didn't say anything about "relative". So this may be a classic Iacchus shift. I generally like folks who love to play with words. They can be poets like Mercutio. But I like wordplay that leads somewhere. It's ok for it to lead to humorland as long as I'm in on the joke. I hope it doesn't lead to the wasteland.

I think we both marvel at the world and who man is in it, Iacchus. But the aspect that I marvel most at is Man's real world accomplishments. And his artistic and scientific achievements in the objective world he finds himself in. In my reality man transcends by his own intellectual and emotional lights. If he refers to God he is really harnessing his own energies, just like he does when he refers to strength, anger, idea and ideals, love...

You diminish man. Everything is a dream. Achievments are dream. God is what is real - God and the illusion of the world.

You asked, Could it be that we are in fact speaking of the same reality, just different aspects of it? Maybe - but it doesn't seem like it.

 

[Iacchus]

I didn't say anything about "relative". So this may be a classic Iacchus shift.

So what exactly did you mean by, "your faith in your truth?" Or, perhaps you just don't realize what you're saying?

I think we both marvel at the world and who man is in it, Iacchus. But the aspect that I marvel most at is Man's real world accomplishments. And his artistic and scientific achievements in the objective world he finds himself in. In my reality man transcends by his own intellectual and emotional lights. If he refers to God he is really harnessing his own energies, just like he does when he refers to strength, anger, idea and ideals, love...

Ah well, yes, if in fact this was all there is. While I find it funny how when you folks start claiming there is no ultimate meaning to the Universe -- how could it, if it all just appeared at random? -- that you take yourselves way too seriously. And then turn around and try to make it look like it's all my probelm. What a joke!

You diminish man. Everything is a dream. Achievments are dream. God is what is real - God and the illusion of the world.

I don't view the world as an illusion, just a lower "plane" of existence.

You asked, Could it be that we are in fact speaking of the same reality, just different aspects of it? Maybe - but it doesn't seem like it.

I do make allowances for you and "your" world believe it or not.

 

[Atlas]

So what exactly did you mean by, "your faith in your truth?" Or, perhaps you just don't realize what you're saying?

Ok, I see the error. By emphasizing the wrong word you end up with a misquote which can be misconstrued. I said your faith in your "truth". Think of it as more cynical than relative.

Ah well, yes, if in fact this was all there is.

There is no evidence otherwise though Randi is looking so we should stay tuned.

While I find it funny how when you folks start claiming there is no ultimate meaning to the Universe -- how could it, if it all just appeared at random? -- that you take yourselves way too seriously. And then turn around and try to make it look like it's all my probelm. What a joke!

Ultimate meaning is something we'll never know. The Universe is so huge and we are at the farthest corner. From our vantage ultimate meaning is complete conjecture. Your problem is that you refuse to accept that - though you know it's true. Or can you tell us today what the ultimate meaning of the universe is? Who's joking who here?

I don't view the world as an illusion, just a lower "plane" of existence.

I do make allowances for you and "your" world believe it or not.

I anticipated this reply with my accusation that: You diminish Man. We're lower forms on a lower plane. You got this from religion. We are sinful vile creatures. And you make allowances - Geez Iacchus. Your thinking is infected this way. If you had some esteem in your measure you would see yourself and us and our world much more positively.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Come on boys, lets not argue.

lets have a singsong.

 

[Atlas]

Come on boys, lets not argue.

lets have a singsong.

I won't be able to follow. I never learned the words to Kumbaya.

That's probably my whole problem.

 

[Iacchus]

Ok, I see the error. By emphasizing the wrong word you end up with a misquote which can be misconstrued. I said your faith in your "truth". Think of it as more cynical than relative.

Oh, I understood the cynicism here. Why do you think I was trying to toss your own "relativistic" views back in your face?

There is no evidence otherwise though Randi is looking so we should stay tuned.

In other words it requires someone else to point it out to you. Correct? Isn't this the same problem we have with The Church? Indeed, how would we know, if it wasn't ascertainable for oneself?

Ultimate meaning is something we'll never know. The Universe is so huge and we are at the farthest corner. From our vantage ultimate meaning is complete conjecture. Your problem is that you refuse to accept that - though you know it's true. Or can you tell us today what the ultimate meaning of the universe is? Who's joking who here?

You don't believe the Universe is chock of meaning and, entails an ultimate design? Well, I guess that doesn't leave us much to wonder about now does it?

I anticipated this reply with my accusation that: You diminish Man. We're lower forms on a lower plane. You got this from religion. We are sinful vile creatures. And you make allowances - Geez Iacchus. Your thinking is infected this way. If you had some esteem in your measure you would see yourself and us and our world much more positively.

Do caterpillars have sex? I'm a spiritist ... not a Bible thumper.

 

[Robin]

[You don't believe the Universe is chock of meaning and, entails an ultimate design? Well, I guess that doesn't leave us much to wonder about now does it?

It leaves us with just about everything to wonder about.

 

[Robin]

I tend to return a degree of trust (or faith) to the function, and that at many levels is enough for me...

That is an intriguing statement - do you mean the function of religion in the world generally or is it how religion operates in your own life?

 

[Ladewig]

May I respectfully request that in the future, you write more descriptive titles so that people with slow connections can decide whether or not to open threads.

Also, more descriptive thread titles allow people who want to follow the thread to find it more easily.

 

[stamenflicker]

Robin,

That is an intriguing statement - do you mean the function of religion in the world generally or is it how religion operates in your own life?

Practically speaking I mean how it operates in my life and those in my immediate surroundings. Ideally speaking, religion (most forms of it anyway) could function in a trustworthy manner at a general human level, but that's not reality.

Flick

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have faith in my wife's fidelity-- maybe even in moments of great doubt. It is a hope and a trust that she remains true to her vows.

At least you know your wife exists. Suppose that you had to believe on trust, not just that your wife was faithful, but suppose that you had a good recollection of your whole life, and that you had no recollection even of being married, and that no-one could show you the woman who was meant to be your wife, or even show you a picture of her: then could you believe, despite your own memories, that you really were married and had a wife and that she was faithful --- on the basis of "hope and trust" alone. Could you do that?

If I believed that there was a God, I should certainly trust him. I would trust my wife --- if I believed I had one. But I am single and I can find no God in the world I live in.

"Being hungry does not prove that we have bread."